Journalism
Tucker Carlson Giddy Over Teargassing Of 'Secessionist' Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler
Sure, this is normal.
July 24, 2020 01:45 PM
On Wednesday, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler went out to talk to protesters in his city ... and was subsequently tear-gassed by the federal agents currently occupying it. Wheeler later decried the use of "urban warfare" against Portland citizens and said the tactic was an "egregious overreaction," noting, "I can tell you with 100 percent honesty, I saw nothing which provoked this response."
Ted Wheeler is certainly not perfect and many of those protesting in Portland have their issues with him as well — and Wheeler, for his part, appears to understand that. He also understands that the federal agents going around scaring the crap out of all of those people have got to go.
<p>Via <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/portland-protest-tear-gas-mayor.html" target="_blank">The New York Times:</a></p><blockquote>But the Democratic mayor, 57, has also long been the target of Portland protesters infuriated by the city police's own use of tear gas, which was persistent until a federal judge ordered the city to use it only when there was a safety issue. As Mr. Wheeler went through the crowd, some threw objects in his direction and others called for his resignation, chanting, "Tear Gas Teddy."<br><br>Mr. Wheeler joined the crowd at the front of the protest, against a barrier <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/portland-protests-courthouse.html" target="_blank" title="">around the federal courthouse</a>. As a first volley of tear gas wafted over them, Mr. Wheeler stayed put, watching the actions of federal agents.<br><br><a href="https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1286194497559252992" target="_blank" title="">After another large wave of tear gas sent Mr. Wheeler away from the scene</a>, some protesters mocked him, asking how it felt. Mr. Wheeler said that joining the protesters at the front of the line was just one way he was going to try to rid the city of the federal tactical teams.<br><br>"A lot of these people hate my guts," Mr. Wheeler said in an interview, looking around at the crowd. But he said they were unified in wanting federal officers gone.</blockquote><p>There are many takes one could potentially have on an incident like this. Tucker Carlson's take last night was that it was absolutely hilarious. </p><p>There are few things quite as unsettling as Tucker Swanson McNear Alabaster Carlson giddily talking about a person getting teargassed by federal agents, but we're gonna take a look anyway. </p><p>"He was handed a list of demands by the <em>angry children</em>, and then he was teargassed by federal law enforcement!" Carlson said with the kind of impish glee one rarely hears along with the words "teargassed by federal law enforcement!" </p><p>Carlson also brought on newly minted <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stephen-miller" target="_blank">SPLC-designated extremist</a> Stephen Miller to discuss the incident, asking him if there was any way the federal government could "strip" Ted Wheeler of his bodyguards (which are almost definitely not funded with federal tax dollars), and then assumed his traditional "confused Labrador" before listening to to Miller's response.</p><div id="2e7d2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a1f9d23dc0c0b93841d409898f442882"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1286459132581732352" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Stephen Miller is calling Democratic mayors and governors secessionists https://t.co/2wR4bPPj8N</div> — Jason Campbell (@Jason Campbell)<a href="https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/statuses/1286459132581732352">1595550733.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Miller said:</p><blockquote>That's a really great question, certainly worth looking at. But I will make this point — the Democratic Party, for a long time, historically, has been the party of secession. What you're seeing today is the Democratic Party returning to its roots. These are mayors and governors that are saying 'the federal law, the US Constitution, doesn't apply within the confines of our city, and our citizens will be held at the mercy of the mob. And the administration of justice, the federal courthouse, will be allowed to fall under siege.' And that's what's happening now in Portland. </blockquote><p>Miller then directed viewers at home to click on a link to a very important article that subsequently turned out to be a video of Rik Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up." Because our government is now run by internet trolls. <br></p><p>Carlson wasn't the only Fox News personality to address the situation with Ted Wheeler last night; Hannity also brought it up — with special guest Donald J. Trump, where the two mocked the mayor for listening to his constituents. </p><p>Via <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-calls-portland-mayor-pathetic-attending-protest-2020-7" target="_blank">Business Insider:</a></p><blockquote>Trump called out Mayor Ted Wheeler, a Democrat, during an interview on <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/shows/hannity" target="_blank">Sean Hannity's</a> Fox News show Thursday night. <br><br>Commenting on Wheeler speaking at the protest Wednesday night, where he was booed, Trump said: "He made a fool out of himself."<br><br>Wheeler has been criticized in the city for failing to address the violent measures used by Portland's local police in previous protests.<br><br><span></span>"He wanted to be among the people, so he went into the crowd and so they knocked the hell out of him, so that was the end of him," Trump said Thursday. "So that was pretty pathetic."</blockquote><p>Wow, just imagine being criticized by people — and then ... listening to them! Like some kind of woman, probably. No, it is definitely better to pretend all of your failings are actually victories, and that way, no one will ever be able to tell that you've fucked up. </p><p>Again, Wheeler's handling of the protests has not been ideal — the former Republican shouldn't have ever allowed the police in his city to tear gas protesters to begin with — but he's going out to listen to people, rather than running down to the White House bunker to hide, and that seems an extremely not "pathetic" thing to do. </p><div id="d4fcd" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d93b970ccf6f3967ea301ab8693db26e"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1286481736604426241" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">What I saw last night was powerful in many ways. I listened, heard, and stood with protesters. And I saw what it me… https://t.co/FOhdbjFrJ6</div> — Mayor Ted Wheeler (@Mayor Ted Wheeler)<a href="https://twitter.com/tedwheeler/statuses/1286481736604426241">1595556122.0</a></blockquote></div><p>[<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-calls-portland-mayor-pathetic-attending-protest-2020-7" target="_blank">Business Insider</a> | <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/portland-protest-tear-gas-mayor.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>]<br></p><p><strong>Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us! Also if you are buying stuff on Amazon, </strong><a href="https://www.amazon.com/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=sl2&tag=wonkette0f-20&linkId=e6057399a4696aad6e79c000ca483f54&language=en_US" target="_blank">click this link</a>!</p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form> <p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Feminininism
In Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Times Sees Scheming Woman
Oh we forgot: That's redundant.
July 24, 2020 01:16 PM
Yesterday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) blew up the internet with her passionate condemnation of the misogynist culture that makes men like her colleague Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Florida) think they can get away with calling women horrible things and then be forgiven for it because, after all, look at my wife and daughters. It was brilliant and righteously sad and angry and (says this Doktor of Rhetoric) a hell of a tightly constructed argument, to boot.
And then the New York Times had to go and try to report on it. Oh lordy. You may have thought you saw a very smart member of Congress excoriating institutional sexism and the systems of power that have kept it in place, and carefully dissecting exactly why sexist men are so often able to get a free pass as long as they pretend to apologize. But the Times saw something a bit different. It saw a savvy political operator disrupting norms and enhancing her own prestige. Urgggh.
<p>Mind you, the story, by reporters <span style="background-color: initial;">Luke Broadwater</span> and <span style="background-color: initial;">Catie Edmondson, does at least acknowledge that Ocasio-Cortez connected with an audience of women who were glad to hear her calling this crap out, and that other women in the House backed her up with their own stories of having faced butthead men who didn't treat them as fully human. The reporters clearly get what she was saying, and recognize that the speech just might represent a real moment of cultural change. This is not your grandfather's old-boy dismissal of a silly little feminist bobblehead. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: initial;">But hoo, doggies, did they <em>have </em>to frame Ocasio-Cortez as a calculating political operator whose biggest achievement was in advancing her own </span>image? We're not above a teensy bit of cynicism around here, but look at this nonsense. Just look at it! We're going to toss in a big blockquote here so you get the full flavor: </p><blockquote>Ever since Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came to Congress as the youngest woman elected to the House, she has upended traditions, harnessing the power of social media and challenging leaders, including President Trump, who are 50 years her senior.<br><br>On Thursday, she had her most norm-shattering moment yet when she took to the House floor to read into the Congressional Record a sexist vulgarity that Representative Ted Yoho, a Florida Republican, had used to refer to her.<br><br>"In front of reporters, Representative Yoho called me, and I quote: 'A fucking bitch,'" she said, punching each syllable in the vulgarity. "These are the words Representative Yoho levied against a congresswoman."<br><br>Then Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who excels at using her detractors to amplify her own political brand, invited a group of Democratic women in the House to come forward to express solidarity with her. One by one, they shared their own stories of harassment and mistreatment by men, including in Congress. More even than the profanity uttered on the House floor, where language is carefully regulated, what unfolded over the next hour was a remarkable moment of cultural upheaval on Capitol Hill.</blockquote><p>She <em>upends</em> traditions and <em>shatters</em> norms! She <em>harnesses </em>social media! She <em>punches </em>each syllable of the vulgarity, and excels in using her detractors to <em>amplify </em>her own political brand. She even corralled her Democratic women colleagues, presumably to amplify her amplification of this cultural <em>upheaval</em>. </p><p>Again, partial credit to Broadwater and Edmondson for recognizing that this is indeed a cultural moment. But wow, those are a lot of verbs you could apply just as easily to a vandal as to someone making a cogent critique of institutional misogyny.</p><p> Also, how about this? As bestselling author person and <em>New York</em> magazine journalist Mark Harris <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkHarrisNYC/status/1286494080415997952" target="_blank">points out</a> on Twitter, Broadwater's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/us/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ted-yoho.html" target="_blank">two</a> previous <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/politics/aoc-yoho.html" target="_blank">articles</a> about Yoho's verbal attack on Ocasio-Cortez <em>don't quote what he said</em> at all, instead describing his comments as "a vulgar and sexist expletive," and "a pair of expletives." </p><p>Yoho's sexist obscenity finally gets aired here — but his offensive language is framed as part of Ocasio-Cortez's effort to shatter the norms of the House's "carefully regulated" rules of decorum. He may have said something terrible, but it only violates norms when a lady speaks it aloud on the floor of the House. <span></span></p><p>The piece improves a bit when it recounts the supporting speeches of other congresswomen who shared their own brief interludes with hideous mansplaining. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) recalled the time a Republican man (Rep. Don Young, though she didn't name him) called her "young lady" (she was 51 at the time) and angrily said she <a href="https://www.facebook.com/seattletimes/videos/10155535644411215/?v=10155535644411215" target="_blank">"doesn't know a damn thing about what she's talking about."</a> Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) said that "Few women here watching have not felt a man's bullying breath or menacing finger in our face as we were told exactly where our place was at work." And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said "I can tell you this firsthand, they called me names for at least 20 years of leadership" — and more. </p><p>But then we're back to the tale of AOC the politician on the make, recounting the initial coverage of the insult and Ocasio-Cortez's tweet that "<strong></strong>embraced the insult, remarking, 'But hey, 'b*tches' get stuff done.'" Even her invitation to other women to tell their stories is cast as political gameswomanship: </p><blockquote>By Wednesday evening, the media-savvy Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had sprung into action to create a disruptive and viral event. Her aides emailed invitations asking her fellow lawmakers to join her on Thursday on the House floor, when she planned to discuss how she "was accosted and publicly ridiculed," according to a copy of the invitation.</blockquote><p>So sure, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez connected with every woman who ever had to put up with a man's shit, at work or elsewhere, only to see him face no consequences for it. She was rightly recognized as having a sharp perception of just how insidious and pervasive it all is. And she pointed out the whole rotten system and says it has to change. </p><p>But that's kind of her <em>brand</em>, you know? </p><p>[<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-sexism-congress.html" target="_blank">NYT </a>/ <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkHarrisNYC/status/1286494080415997952" target="_blank">Mark Harris</a> on Twitter] </p><p>Yr Wonkette is supported entirely by reader donations! Help us amplify <em>our </em>brand with a donation, if you can!</p><p></p><p><a href="https://amzn.to/33mKzZe" target="_blank">Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Journalism
David Brooks Sad No One Would Pay Dead Christopher Hitchens To Tell Women They Aren't Funny
What a loss for humanity!
July 24, 2020 11:48 AM
Finally! The moment that everyone has been waiting for all month — David Brooks has published an op-ed weighing in on cancel culture, beating new life into a dead horse. He will not be intimidated, he will not be afraid to say the exact same things that others like him have been saying for what seems like 6,000 years at this point.
As expected, it is a whirlwind of well-worn thoughts about the "intellectual exclusion" of conservatives and "heterodox" thinkers (by law, all essays decrying "cancel culture" must use the term "heterodox" at least 42 times) and handwringing because "This thing that was popular 30 years ago would probably not be a popular thing now!," and how people are afraid to share the things they believe on social media, because of how those things will be criticized.
So let's jump in, shall we?
Like other realms, American intellectual life has been marked by a series of exclusions. The oldest and vastest was the exclusion of people of color from the commanding institutions of our culture.
Today, there's the exclusion of conservatives from academic life. Then there's the exclusion of working-class voices from mainstream media. Our profession didn't used to be all coastal yuppies, but now it mostly is. Then there's the marginalization of those with radical critiques — from say, the Marxist left and the theological right.
Intellectual exclusion and segregation have been terrible for America, poisoning both the right and the left.
<p>Oh! The dude who works at the <em>New York Times </em>wants to talk about how "our profession" didn't used to be all coastal yuppies? That's not because of some kind of trend of purposeful intellectual exclusion, that is <em>because capitalism</em>. If pretty much all media jobs require people to live in expensive cities on the East Coast, the media will be made up, entirely, of people who can afford to live in expensive cities on the East Coast. </p><p>As far as the "exclusion of conservatives from academic life"? Perhaps running around screaming that universities are facilities of "Marxist indoctrination" helped with that. As far as everything else? Radical thought is radical thought because it is on the fringe. If it were not, it would not be all that radical. Although if you want the truth, as someone who has always been on the radical Left side of things, I can tell you that people are actually a lot more open to certain ideas now than they were 20 years ago. </p><blockquote>Conservatives were told their voices didn't matter, and many reacted in a childish way that seemed to justify that exclusion. A corrosive spirit of resentment and victimhood spread across the American right — an intellectual inferiority complex combined with a moral superiority complex.</blockquote><p>Aw! Were they told their voices didn't matter? I wonder if that was because they spent a good deal of time telling everyone else in the world that their voices didn't matter. That they weren't "Real Americans." That women who wanted equality were "feminazis." That everyone in the whole world was out to destroy their way of life. That they needed guns in order to overthrow the government in case things were not going their way? </p><p>Brooks goes on like that for some time, criticizing the spirit of anti-intellectualism on the Right and the supposed intellectual conformity on the Left. A conformity that would probably, hypothetically, lead us to not publish the work of <em>Christopher Hitchens</em> in this day and age. </p><blockquote>In some ways the left has become even more conformist than the right. The liberal New Republic has less viewpoint diversity than the conservative National Review — a reversal of historical patterns. Christopher Hitchens was one of the great essayists in America. He would be unemployable today because there was no set of priors he wasn't willing to offend.</blockquote><p>And then who would be there to tell women we aren't funny? Or to support the invasion of Iraq despite the fact that it was a really bad idea? Other than so, so many other people who would be very easy to find anywhere. I could give you 12 message boards and websites right now. </p><p>Of course, what Brooks is really asking here is <em>Would anyone pay Christopher Hitchens to say that women are not funny?</em> Would a magazine or website with a lot of money hear that particular pitch and go "Yes please, we would like to buy that with our money!"? And the answer is <em>probably not</em>. Not because of "censorship," not because they were afraid of offending people, but because it's not a particularly interesting or new take and no one is going to buy the misogynist cow when they can get the misogynist milk for free. No one is clamoring to know the thought process behind that theory. It's been done. By him. </p><p>We currently live in a world where it is remarkably easy to get offended. I am not talking here about people being overly sensitive, I am talking about there actually being many, many things out there that are very much worth being offended by. We are at no loss of that right now! We've got police officers killing unarmed Black people left and right. Donald Trump is our president. <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/right-wing-domestic-terrorism-has-increased-by-more-than-300-since-trump-took-office-report/" target="_blank">Rightwing domestic terrorism</a> is up 300 percent since he <em>started</em> being our president. There are secret police disappearing people in Portland. There is a pandemic happening and a large percentage of our population is out there claiming it's not real and refusing to wear masks and people are dying because of that. There are so many, many things to actually be offended by that it is a wonder that we are not all constantly walking around in a state of shock going "What the fuck even is this?" </p><p>Personally, I find it offensive that when all of this is going on, rich white dudes like David Brooks cannot stop themselves from spilling untold amounts of ink in the <em>New York Times</em> about how they don't feel they have enough of a voice or a platform, and how very sad it is that Dead Christopher Hitchens cannot, hypothetically, get anything published these days. </p><p>One might also be offended by the idea that David Brooks somehow thinks that he, David Brooks, is somehow more socially acceptable than Hitchens, who was at least <em>occasionally</em> right about things or clever — two things David Brooks has never managed to pull off.</p><p>And yet he continues.</p><blockquote>Now the boundaries of exclusion are shifting again. What we erroneously call "cancel culture" is an attempt to shift the boundaries of the sayable so it excludes not only conservatives but liberals and the heterodox as well. Hence the attacks on, say, Steven Pinker and Andrew Sullivan.</blockquote><p>Ah yes, known liberal Andrew Sullivan. </p><p>There is no one in the world — and this includes Steven Pinker, David Brooks, and Andrew Sullivan — who does not have their own ideas about what is and what is not "sayable." Pinker has ... well. </p><p>Perhaps that could have remained unsaid. (The link the tweet is now dead, but here is the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140602035113/https://www.nationalreview.com/article/379271/ucsb-solipsists-heather-mac-donald" target="_blank">internet archive copy</a> of the very charming Heather MacDonald National Review article it referred to.)</p><p>Brooks continues:</p><blockquote>This is not just an elite or rare phenomenon. Sixty-two percent of Americans say they are afraid to share things they believe, according to a <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-political-views-theyre-afraid-share#_blank" target="_blank" title="">poll</a> for the Cato Institute. A majority of staunch progressives say they feel free to share their political views, but majorities of liberals, moderates and conservatives are afraid to.</blockquote><p>Look, I hate to be "heterodox" here, but from where I stand, there are a whole lot of people out there who could benefit from not saying every little thing that comes into their mind. In fact, I would include myself in this group, on some days.</p><p>There will <em>always</em> be things that people think privately but don't say publicly. What I will say is that, as a "staunch progressive," I am pretty used to people disagreeing with me and have been for my whole entire life, so the idea of people disagreeing with me publicly is not all that intimidating. I grew up in a very small and conservative town, there is not much anyone can do to scare me at this point. But part of the reason I am not "afraid" is because I believe I am standing up for what's right, and so I don't care what other people think. Most of the time. </p><p>I think a lot of the time, the things people are afraid to say are the things they're not too sure of themselves or things that they, on some level, think are wrong or that would serve no other purpose than to hurt people. </p><p>But personally, I've never known a conservative who was afraid of any of those things or, really, afraid to share their political views. In fact, I have found them quite eager to do this. Same goes for moderates, who really seem to want everyone to know that they, and <em>only</em> they, are the <em>truly</em> reasonable ones. </p><p>The rest of Brooks's op-ed is all about how he thinks the subscription-only model of <a href="https://substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a> is going to be the future of media, so that writers can just write for their specific audiences, for people who like them enough to pay to read them, without worrying about getting fired or "canceled." Though it certainly does seem like an odd solution to this supposed intellectual segregation.</p><blockquote>The first good thing about Substack is there's no canceling. A young, talented heterodox thinker doesn't have to worry that less talented conformists in his or her organization will use ideology as an outlet for their resentments. The next good thing is there are no ads, just subscription revenue. Online writers don't have to chase clicks by writing about whatever Trump tweeted 15 seconds ago. They can build deep relationships with the few rather than trying to affirm or titillate the many.<br><br>It's possible that the debate now going on stupidly on Twitter can migrate to newsletters. It's possible that writers will bundle, with established writers promoting promising ones. It's possible that those of us at the great remaining mainstream outlets will be enmeshed in conversations that are more freewheeling and thoughtful.</blockquote><p>Those are two different things though? </p><p>I only subscribe to one Substack right now (Samantha Irby's <a href="https://bitchesgottaeat.substack.com/" target="_blank">"Who's On Judge Mathis Today?"</a> newsletter, both because she is hilarious and because we've been friends for over a decade), and while I am very in favor of writers being able to make money independent of outlets, if that were the whole entire future of journalism, I'd be a little worried! Because not everyone can afford to subscribe to 40 different newsletters. That would be a little classist, frankly. </p><blockquote>Mostly I'm hopeful that the long history of intellectual exclusion and segregation will seem disgraceful. It will seem disgraceful if you're at a university and only 1.5 percent of the faculty members are conservative. (I'm looking at you, <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/3/3/faculty-support-warren-president/" target="_blank" title="">Harvard</a>). A person who ideologically self-segregates will seem pathetic. I'm hoping the definition of a pundit changes — not a foot soldier out for power, but a person who argues in order to come closer to understanding.</blockquote><p>Everyone ideologically self-segregates, including David Brooks. He chooses who he wants to listen to just as much as anyone else does. As long as the word "intellectual" is a thing, there will be "intellectual exclusion" of some form or another. If David Brooks wants to be a pundit who "argues in order to come closer to understanding," he should consider listening more. </p><p>[<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/opinion/substack-newsletters-writers.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur" target="_blank">New York Times</a>]</p><p><strong>Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us! Also if you are buying stuff on Amazon, </strong><a href="https://www.amazon.com/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=sl2&tag=wonkette0f-20&linkId=e6057399a4696aad6e79c000ca483f54&language=en_US" target="_blank">click this link</a>!</p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form> <p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Crime
Bill Barr Is Literally Fake News
Dangerous incompetence? Or incompetent dangerousness? Hmmmmm.
July 23, 2020 10:32 AM
Does Bill Barr need to take the Person Woman Man Camera TV test? Has our mendacious attorney general lost his marbles, or is he just lying again? Spoiler alert: It is both! Barr's circuits are fried from 25 years of Fox, and also he's full of shit.
Three and a half years into Donald Trump's presidency, Commander Couch Potato has suddenly decided that crime in America's cities is an emergency requiring drastic federal response. As opposed to a global pandemic, which the states need to deal with on their own, because the federal government isn't a shipping clerk.
DOJ agents will surge into "Democrat run" cities and somehow solve crimes in communities they know nothing about. Local police haven't been able to reduce crime in cities they know like the back of their hands, but Bill Barr has that big government magic serum that will put things right in a jiffy.
<p>As a resident of a city whose name is synonymous with an intractable murder rate, I am very curious to see what groundbreaking techniques the AG will bring to bear. Will they be as effective as his "surge" against "rioters" in Portland? Judging by early reports out of Kansas City, it will be exactly as successful as Portland.</p><p>Yesterday Barr <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-during-operation-legend-expansion" target="_blank">announced</a> the expansion of the Operation Legend Task Force to prevent violent crime, with expanded DOJ presence in Kansas City, Albuquerque, and Chicago.</p><p>"Unfortunately, in recent months we have seen a significant increase in violent crime in a number of cities," he tut-tutted. "This rise has been exacerbated by the recent movement to demonize police and de-fund police departments." There is literally no evidence that protests against police violence have fueled an increase in the murder rate, but keep that part in mind, since we're coming back to that in a minute. Just remember that Bill Barr is justifying this surge because, "In Kansas City, there have already been 100 homicides this year, a 40 percent increase from the same time last year."</p><p>After assurances that these were "standard anti-criminal activities" rather than "operations and tactical teams we use to defend against riots and mob violence" as in Portland, Barr went on to brag about the early success of the program.</p><p>"Just to give you an idea of what's possible, the FBI went in very strong into Kansas City and within two weeks we've had 200 arrests," he <a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article244421027.html" target="_blank">bragged</a>. As if rounding up a bunch of brown kids and <a href="https://davidsimon.com/omalley-bad-math/" target="_blank">charging them with stupid shit</a> would be a great metric of success, if it had actually happened. <em>Which it did not.</em></p><p>Missouri officials scratched their heads at Barr's boast, since they only knew of one arrest during that period, a 20-year-old man <a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article244371867.html" target="_blank">charged</a> on Monday with being an unlawful drug user in possession of firearms. There's no indication that the defendant was a criminal mastermind, and the agents appear to have picked him up by running the license plate to find that he was driving a stolen car, which isn't exactly a high-level investigative technique. If that's all they got after sending 200 additional agents into the area, well, <em>it ain't much.</em></p><p>Which is perhaps why Barr felt the need to stretch the truth by 199 arrests. When <em>Kansas City Star</em> reporters asked what the hell the AG was talking about (support your local paper!), a DOJ official explained that the number included "arrests dating back to December 2019" when Operation Relentless Pursuit (which is now being folded into Operation Legend) <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barr-announces-launch-operation-relentless-pursuit" target="_blank">launched</a> in Kansas City, and also counted "both state and FBI arrests in joint operations." </p><p>UH HUH.</p><p>So, just to make this totally clear, we need to spend millions of tax dollars sending federal agents into Kansas City to prevent the escalation of violence that occurred during the last period when federal agents were last surged into the city to prevent an escalation of violence. And you know this surge will be successful because they already managed to pick up 200 dudes, AHEM SORRY 1 dude, who was charged with gun possession, in an area of the country where everyone owns a gun.</p><p>Obviously, this is all Joe Biden's fault for demanding that police be defunded and replaced with drag queen story hour. Hope you're happy, Joe!</p><p>[<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-during-operation-legend-expansion" target="_blank">DOJ Press Release</a> / <a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article244421027.html" target="_blank">KC Star</a>]</p><p><span></span><strong>Follow Liz Dye on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/5DollarFeminist" target="_blank">RIGHT HERE!</a></strong></p><p><strong>Please click here to support your Wonkette. And if you're ordering your quarantine goods on Amazon, <a href="https://amzn.to/2wbH77j" target="_blank">this is the link to do it.</a></strong></p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Newsletter
©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc
